MyAssignmentServices uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more

Enterprise Law

1. Issue: Whether revocation by Home Interiors Ltd (HI) is valid?

Rule:

Common-Law- Contract Law

Application:

Home Interiors Ltd (HI) revocation of its offer will not be a valid revocation as Carbord Ltd (C) received the offer letter on Monday morning and accepted the offer immediately by posting its confirmation on the same day. Due to the unreasonable circumstance of the strike, directly affecting the Australian posting service resulted in a delay while reaching the acceptance offer to HI as a result the letter of acceptance sent by C was not received by HI till Friday afternoon. HI revoked the offer and ordered the same material from an alternative wholesaler by way of sending a fax to C before HI received an acceptance letter from C. In the case[1], the court held that the acceptance letter posted prevails over previously posted revocation of the offer. It is also mentioned in the case[2], that acceptance takes place as soon as it is posted, even if it doesn’t reach the offeree and gets delayed[3]. From the case[4] we can infer that C had acted immediately and had posted the letter of acceptance on the date on which he got the offer and therefore the delay caused for reaching the acceptance letter to HI was not in the hands of C as the strike which was an unreasonable circumstance couldn't be controlled by C. Also, the acceptance letter sent by C even after the delay caused due to strike was reached three days before the delivery order and hence it can be presumed that such acceptance was also received within a reasonable time.

In the second case, two situation arises, first if C had sent the acceptance of the order before HI faxed the cancellation of his order i.e. before 4:15 p.m., then C acceptance of the offer will be valid and cancellation of the order made by HI will not be valid. In the second situation if the timing of the cancellation order by HI was before C confirmation of the order then HI cancellation of the order will be valid and acceptance of the order made by C will not have any legal standing as the timing is the essential part of any offer and acceptance and the time determines the position of the parties.

Conclusion:

Therefore, in light of the above, in the first case, C has the legal right against HI by which it can force HI to accept the delivery. In the second case, the first situation will be a valid acceptance of an offer, and in the second situation, the acceptance will not be valid.

2. Issue: Whether Samantha is entitled to receive the reward amount?

Rule:

Common-Law- Contract Law

Application:

Yes, Samantha is entitled to demand the reward which Jenny offered by displaying the same on the staff notice board that whosoever finds the personal organizer of her, she will reward that person. Samantha, though she was not aware of the reward notice she found the personal organizer of Samantha and hence she became entitled to the reward. Also, Jenny in person said to Samantha that she will pay Samantha the full amount of reward. In the landmark case[5] the defendant was liable to pay the reward price mentioned in the advertisement.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Jenny is liable to pay Samantha the reward as stipulated on the notice board and if she fails to do so then Samantha has a legal right to sue Jenny.

3. Issue: Whether Joe will be successful in suing Simone?

Rule:

Common-Law- Contract Law

Application:

Yes, Joe will be successful in recovering the purchase price as Simone has misrepresented and induced Joe by his misrepresentation to purchase his small café. Simone misrepresented Joe by way of stating, during the time of the contract that the small cafe gives him an earning of $2,500 per week. In reality, the said small café gives the earning of not more than $750 per week. It is to be noted that when a person buys a business say for example in the current case Joe has purchased the small cafe on one of the major grounds that the said cafe would yield him $2500 per week income and if such statement over which Joe has purchased the small cafe is mispresented by Simone, then the contract between Joe and Simone is voidable at the option of Joe and he can anytime cancel the contract[6]. To support the answer in the case[7], it was held that the failure of the vendor to disclose the correct facts of the case and misrepresenting that the medical practice was yielding £ 2000 which was in reality giving an income of £ 200 amounts to misrepresentation.

Conclusion:

Hence, it can be concluded that misrepresentation has been caused to Joe by Simone of which Simone will be held liable.

4. Issue: Whether the defense of duress taken by the senior employee will have any legal standing?

Rule:

Common-Law- Contract Law

Application:

No, the senior employee will not be successful in proving that the action taken against him by the company amounts to duress. The duress is not present in the given case because the senior employee’s daughter had misappropriated $ 500000 from the company and such misappropriation is illegal which can inflict a heavy penalty on her daughter. The managing director of the company must take action against such an employee whose daughter has misappropriated the amount from the company. It is very reasonable for the managing director of the company to talk in such terminology with the senior employee as fraud has been committed by her daughter. The employee has failed to pay back the money as per the schedule of repayments signed by him. In the case[8] the court held that the defense of duress is excluded when a person voluntarily gets involved in the criminal activity.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the company will be successful in recovering the amount from the employee and her daughter and both of them cannot hide under the defense of duress as fraud is an exception to such a rule.

Bibliography for Home Interiors Ltd Common Law

Acts and regulations:

Common-Law- Contract Law

Case Law:

Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681

Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 

R v Hasan [2005] 2 AC 467

Re Imperial Land Co of Marseilles (Harris’s case) (1872) LR 7 Ch 587, 

With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help

Get It Done! Today

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Not Specific >5000
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Highlights

  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Get
500 Words Free
on your assignment today

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

Request Callback

My Assignment Services- Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Hire Certified Experts
Ask your Question
Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?